Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.44 seconds)
Sujata Shekhar Shah vs Mirador Construction Private Limited on 24 February, 2023 cites

M/S. Innoventive Industries Ltd vs Icici Bank on 31 August, 2017

G.Clause 3 of the Investment Agreement stated that the Corporate Debtor would be liable to return back the amount invested after the completion of the period of investment, which was 2 years or 3 years (a pg. 42. Appeal). It was also liable to make payment of Half yearly and Quarterly payment of interest, under the agreements. Clause 5 of the Investment Agreements dealt with the contingency of a default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in paying the dues under the Investment Agreements. It stated in the said clause that in case the Corporate Debtor is unable to return back the Secured amount after the expiry of the period of investment, then it shall transfer the secured premises in favour of the Applicant @ pg. 43, Appeal) H.The Corporate Debtor has specifically referred to Clause 5 of the Agreement to contend that the Applicant herein were offered transfer of the Secured Premises in favour of the Appellants (@pg. 9, Counter Affidavit). I.Once the Corporate Debtor itself admits that the contingency for invoking Clause 5 of the Agreement has occurred, it admits that there is a default on its part in paying the debt due in favour of the Appellants. The natural consequence of the said admission, in light of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Innoventive Case (Supra). is that the Petition under Section 7 is liable to be allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. J. The Corporate Debtor itself has recognised the Appellants herein as the creditors of the Company in the Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.314 and 395 of 2021 36 Audited Books of Accounts of the Corporate Debtor (@pg. 74, Appeal).
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 333 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next